W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

From: Natasha Rooney <nrooney@gsma.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:36:41 +0000
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AFB2F72D-B333-43D4-88A8-7AF27AEAA673@gsma.com>
I am also pro publishing the doc.

PR 224: Discussed in process CG; addition is logical. +1

PR 214: happy with the changes. +1

PR 215: Allows for required updates without massive restrictions. +1.

Thanks all!

Natasha


Natasha Rooney | Web Director | Web Team | GSMA | nrooney@gsma.com<mailto:nrooney@gsma.com> | +44 (0) 7730 219 765 | @thisNatasha | Skype: nrooney@gsm.org<mailto:nrooney@gsm.org>

On 9 Nov 2018, at 01:18, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>> wrote:

My responses on the questions:

#1.    " Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft...."

0 -- I won't stand in the way if others think we've got a coherent update, but I'm not sure.  I support the idea to expand the AB, but not sure we have the details nailed down, and I'm not at all sure I like the implication that it lowers the approval threshold even further, so I'm not enthusiastic about updating the process just to make this change (and the other minor ones).  I'd also like to see if the elected members of the AB have consensus on fantasai's proposal for elected chairs and if so get that in Process 2019, that  would increase my sense that this is a batch of changes worth making

#2 " Sets the size of the AB to 9–11"
1 -- might need some tweaks but we're close

#3 " Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR"
0.5 - This seems to need a bit of work, but I don't oppose the current language.  I think we want to discourage WGs from going to CR just to show progress if they are not REALLY done with what they can do without implementation experience.  Not everyone seems to read the proposed language that way, so I'm not confident it's ready for AC review.

#4 " Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity"
0 - I haven't wrapped my head around this corner case, but I don't object.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> on behalf of David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM
To: "public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>" <public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>>
Subject: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019,  ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 9:04 AM

   Folks

   Jeff has gently reminded me that I should have held the process call by now, in order to get Process 2019 to vote by the AC (and review by the AB and team). So, since we didn’t have a call this week (mea culpa)…

   This is a formal Call for Consensus on 4 questions below. Please respond within 7 days, i.e. by 9am Pacific  on the 15th November.  These need to be binary yes/no or approve/reject responses, please.

   Earlier responses are gratefully received.  Specific concerns, even editorial ones, should be noted in GitHub. (But if you respond to any of these with No, I expect to find somewhere the substantiation of that no, probably as a comment on the Pull Request or filing of a New Issue).

   There are four roughly independent questions. We have a current draft, and, I believe that there are 3 Pull Requests that are uncontroversial, and good to incorporate this year. For all of them, if there is any significant objection, I think they can be safely deferred. The other Pull Requests seem to need more work.

   Looking at the remaining Issues, I believe that there are no issues that don’t have Pull Requests that are mature enough and urgent enough to address.

   The four questions:

   1) The existing document at GitHub <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259448505&amp;sdata=EvGiV493utji%2BuIlE%2BAX7wdj3%2BiLYK%2Fw%2BqPT%2Fjx1pNI%3D&amp;reserved=0> represents changes that we had consensus to incorporate. However, we have not established consensus that the resulting document should be sent ahead.  A diff with the current process (including, at the end, a summary of changes) can be seen by using the W3C Diff Service <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fservices.w3.org%2Fhtmldiff%3Fdoc1%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252F2018%252FProcess-20180201%252F%26doc2%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fw3c.github.io%252Fw3process%252F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259448505&amp;sdata=7o56h2TAiKE5Ld%2BoqVHBl%2FJCSOcvI%2BTcg%2F1JRm69Kf8%3D&amp;reserved=0>

   Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259448505&amp;sdata=EvGiV493utji%2BuIlE%2BAX7wdj3%2BiLYK%2Fw%2BqPT%2Fjx1pNI%3D&amp;reserved=0> on to the AB, W3M, and then AC for approval?


   2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9–11 https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fw3process%2Fpull%2F224&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259448505&amp;sdata=g3xd0fehEjStRqDC%2Bb6gKPcjoGp0cO0h8fU42berUsE%3D&amp;reserved=0

   The current process enlarges the AB from 9 to 11, a size that might be difficult to fill all the time. This softens that change, saying “at least 9 and no more than 11”, and defines how the elections and so on run to manage that. While we’re in this area, it’s convenient to land this at the same time.

   Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 224?

   3) Pull Request: Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fw3process%2Fpull%2F214&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259448505&amp;sdata=dTJ4AK5wTH%2Fiz72OUVyRpWHrnjNIrQd1%2Bor155d53qw%3D&amp;reserved=0

   The phrase "Candidate Recommendations are expected to be acceptable as Recommendations” in the existing process has been found in practice to be confusing and even ambiguous. This pull request tries to clarify that.

   Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 214?

   4) Pull Request: Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the same maturity https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fw3process%2Fpull%2F215&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnrooney%40gsma.com%7C5804f9c484d84c2cd97908d645e14a40%7C72a4ff82fec3469daafbac8276216699%7C0%7C0%7C636773231259458509&amp;sdata=RePa3b%2BQ9gJUL5FkLX4m%2FjJe061dLLkok750mhxgt44%3D&amp;reserved=0

   This is based on, and depends on, 214, which is expected to be merged first.

   This clarifies that if you update a document already in, say, CR, then the update should meet the CR entry criteria; EXCEPT in the case where you find multiple flaws in a CR, you can update to fix only some of them (even though normally you wouldn’t normally be allowed to enter CR with known flaws), as that’s an improvement.

   Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 215?



   David Singer
   Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.






.
Received on Friday, 9 November 2018 09:37:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:49 UTC